<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Meeting, Charging & Documents

  • To: Andrew Hilborne < >
  • From: Paul Ridley < >
  • Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 21:49:14 +0200
  • Cc:
  • Organization: RIPE-NCC

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your input regarding the revenue and charging document for
1997. Your remarks are most welcome and have been noted. 


> ONYX favour Option 1 for the reasons stated in the paper.  It's clear and
> simple and has worked until now.  It means that charges are known exactly at
> the start of the year.  The paper says that the major disadvantage is that
> there is some cross-subsidisation.  I'd like to know more details about this.
> 

If you look at Appendix B of the document (ripe-143) you will see a
table of how a sample of actual registries would be charged according to
the three different models proposed. From this table the presence of
cross-subsidisation is evident. Models 2 and 3 being usage-based, charge
in proportion to the worklosd given to the RIPE NCC. As can be seen from
the table not all small, medium, and, large registries give the same
amount of workload to the RIPE NCC, and even the workload split between
the size categories is not always so clearcut. If all similar size
categories are charged the same amount then some will pay more than the
workload they cause and some will pay less. This is my opinion is a
clear case of cross-subsidisation.  


Regards

Paul Ridley




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>